# FP's experiments discussion

• Because that's just silly...

How so? Be specific. Use math.

• Nah, I prefer a finite element model over your sophistries. The matrix algebra would take too long to type out.

• I had an amusing realization pop up regarding some prior comments by Dr. McKubre,

"There are more insidious potential error sources possible particularly in electrochemical calorimetry. Ed discovered one in simple isoperobolic calorimetry for which the thermal barrier was the (pyrex) cell wall (changing wall hydraulics). Others exist and we should always be alert and open to suggestion. On the other side I suggest that the suggestors pay close attention to the literature, make quantitative calculation modeling the physical processes that drive the putative mechanism, and do not make global claims of “it is all wrong because…”."

and

"What Ed discovered was that the controlling thermal barrier is not one but two: the glass (pyrex) wall; the hydrodynamic boundary layer of electrolyte. The first may be considered fixed. The second, in series, is subject to change with changes in electrolysis bubble pattern, natural convection, imposed stirring, temperature, electrolyte viscosity, deposition of crud on the wall, surface tension, etc."

So in the proffered model of isoperibolic calorimetry, there is a reasonably fixed 'zone' (the glass wall) and a second zone (the hydrodynamic boundary layer of electrolyte). Of course both of those zones have a fixed width generically speaking. And there is clearly other zones (the electrolyte proper, the gas phase, volume near the electrode, etc.) But Dr. McKubre points out that changing the steady state composition of the boundary layer invalidates the calorimetry! (That means the prior calibration from when the system was in the prior steady state has become invalid.) Amazing! Changing the steady state changed the calibration equation! Imagine that!

Edited once, last by Shane D. ().

• And some of the aforementioned cherry-picking! Brilliant.

• Nah, I prefer a finite element model over your sophistries. The matrix algebra would take too long to type out.

Of course... Troll.

As a modeler, I know the secret. A model can only compute what you build into it and what you test via your range of parameter variation.

• As a modeler, I know the secret. A model can only compute what you build into it and what you test via your range of parameter variation.

Congratulations for stating the obvious. What FE modelling software do you use?

• What FE modelling software do you use?

I never claimed to have done it. I have claimed it does represent the best way to assess the CCS issue. But one has to deliberately try to do that. Usually, when people reject something out-of-hand, they won't be bothered to consider that thing's ramifications.

The modeling I have done is pointed out here: Mizuno's bucket of water

and here:

Besides the published stuff I also did lots of non-novel (i.e. not worthy of publishing), applied modeling at my workplace.

• And some of the aforementioned cherry-picking! Brilliant.

So, pointing out that McKubre does exactly the same thing as I do, albeit with a different effect, is 'cherry picking'. Hmmmm... Then I guess pointing out all the papers where Fleischmann goes into inordinate detail on which 'k_r' to use is cherry picking too? After all F just wanted to make sure he didn't use the wrong constant and get the wrong answer, which sounds a lot like what I have said regarding the CCS.

• And some of the aforementioned cherry-picking! Brilliant.

Zeus,

Your criticism of Shanahan seems to be that his proposals are unlikely, and contrived.

You miss entirely the point. The F&P paper results are unsafe. As historic results, we cannot progress this matter beyond that. If you believe F making an error less likely than some novel nuclear reaction you will see them as good evidence, otherwise not.

Regardless of that, they are not good science. They hypothesise an anomaly, which does not always occur, and then do not close all error mechanisms in a single experiment.

That is unsound. A general "we have tested it and there is empirically no error" cannot be assumed always to apply, and such an error can be mistaken for a novel LENR reaction that only occurs under some (unpredictable) conditions.

In this sense the bar for (not reliably replicable) LENR excess heat observations has to be much higher than would be the case for any reliably replicable effect.

The issue re McKubre's results is rather different. I see a possible resolution of the argument between him and Shanahan, since errors due to CCS-type change in conditions between control and active experinents could be bounded and compared with results. Different assumptions in making those bounds could be laid out openly for all to see.

It would however be a lot of work, and require good will and effort from both sides!

THH

• and then do not close all error mechanisms in a single experiment.

It is never possible to close all error mechanisms in one experiment. For example, to show that the calorimetry is 100% certain, you need to use two or more different calorimeter types based on different principles. Or the same calorimeter with different methods. Otherwise, someone will say there might be systematic errors. That is why, for example, we can be sure the boil-off heat was actually heat. Because different methods were used before and after the boil-off, and it is not possible the heat turned off for 10 minutes during the boil-off. That is one of the many reasons we know the heat is real -- which is why you will not address it.

Another problem is that many error mechanisms are imaginary, and cannot be addressed. For example, I expect it would be impossible for you to demonstrate your droplet hypothesis. If it happens at all, it would be so small, and so difficult to detect, ordinary instruments could not measure it. Obviously, that means it cannot make 30 W look like 150 W, so it is ruled out as the source of this heat. But we cannot rule out the possibility it explains ~1/100,000 of one aspect of the heat. Ignore all the other proof, and pretend that 5 orders of magnitude don't matter, and presto! -- you have an "objection" that must be "addressed." You, or I, or anyone can come up with dozens of similar absurd objections and baseless handwaving. I have seen countless examples over the years. This is not science, but it does work as a kind filibuster to prevent a serious discussion.

This is a way for you to pretend you have found a potential problem when in fact you have found nothing, in this experiment, or any other major experiment. You get to pretend you are one of the kool kids who knows better than Fleischmann or McKubre.

It would however be a lot of work, and require good will and effort from both sides!

Which is totally missing from you and your side. You have not even tried to address the 6 other issues I listed, all from Fleischmann's papers. You make up one absurd objection to his work, that explains nothing, and you pretend that the rest of the evidence he pointed out does not exist. For example, where have you discussed the fact that only the cathode is hot? All the boiling is coming from it. How does your droplet theory explain that? It doesn't! And don't try to weasel out by saying there is no proof of it. You can see the proof yourself, right there in the video. You can also see that 30 W of electrolysis does not even boil the water. You can see a great deal, but you refuse to look. There are none so blind . . .

• Another problem is that many error mechanisms are imaginary, and cannot be addressed.

Error mechanisms that can't be addressed are not real. There must be some way to test the proposal, or it is useless. This is the first thing that differentiates modern science from ancient science. You must test your hypotheses, theses, laws, whatever.

Then, assuming you can propose/devise a test, the next step is to evaluate the magnitude of the error, which you hint at with your 1/100,000 comments. That is the second most important thing modern science discovered. There is 'noise', and 'working in the noise' rarely to never leads to progress.

I also agree you can't eliminate all error mechanisms, but what you do is control and define them such that their impact is understood.

CF research really falls short on those bases.

• Error mechanisms that can't be addressed are not real. There must be some way to test the proposal, or it is useless. This is the first thing that differentiates modern science from ancient science. You must test your hypotheses, theses, laws, whatever.

Exactly! Most of your hypotheses, for example, can be tested, and they are easily disproved. We must give you credit for that. Anyone can put a bucket of water into a room and see that it does not evaporate in one day. Anyone can heat a metal object and see if it is still hot three days later.

It would be more difficult for you find out whether a flow calorimeter is significantly affected by the location of the heat. It isn't. If you were a real scientist you would test one and discover that fact before writing papers.

Of course you refuse to do any of these tests, even ones that would take a few minutes and nothing more than a bucket.

• Jed,

I have one point (also made by Ascoli) that establishing whether boil-off is wet or dry steam matters and cannot be assumed. The correct instrumentation could do this (with some difficulty), or a better type of cell would address it completely. McKubre did this, with closed cells. It is possible to do in the same experiment in which results are reported, and it is self-evident to me that this is needed.

If, however, that is not possible, all it means is that this type of experiment cannot be used to detect some anomalous heat effect that is variable and only sometimes occurs. It is obvious that such an effect could not then be distinguished from this error.

The error mechanism here is clear and can be checked, but was not checked. It offers the possibility of explaining the high excess heats reported in the F&P open cells under boil-off conditions, and the excess reported under non-boil-off but high temperature conditions.

Kirk has proposed another error mechanism: generally that changes in equilibrium heat distribution between control and active experiments could cause apparent excess heat. That could also be bounded by more careful work - though it is perhaps diffivult to get tight bounds in open cells.

I'm not claiming that I know better than F or McK. Merely that the published data from F is not complete enough to be good science, for the reasons I've suggested. I think many others would agree that, and regret the lack of more complete write-ups of these early experiments.

I've not said anything about McK's experiments, except that they are much more carefully instrumented and written up, and that Kirk's mechanism would apply and whether it is important there would require a careful bounding process.

PS - as for only the cathode being hot ATER would explain that, would it not? In any case I don't know how you can establish such a fact from a video. Visible boiling preferentially at the electrode would be expected for reasons other than temperature. I'm not willing to make assumptions in the way that you are, for such statements to be "obvious". As for 30W of electrolysis boiling water, that must surely depend on the temperature, and also on the transient chemical conditions: since significant energy can be stored in electrolysed D and O, and ATER would make for boiling at the electrode... You may be expert enough to make such judgements. I'm not. And F did not make them in his paper.

• Visible boiling preferentially at the electrode would be expected for reasons other than temperature. I'm not willing to make assumptions in the way that you are, for such statements to be "obvious". As for 30W of electrolysis boiling water, that must surely depend on the temperature, and also on the transient chemical conditions: since significant energy can be stored in electrolysed D and O, and ATER would make for boiling at the electrode...

How desperate are You? Why isn't the control not boiling off ???? Can you once find an explanation for this please, before you promenade your fantasy once more?

• Official Post

In Nagel's ICCF21 summary he talks about Staker's contribution. He (Staker) is a Loyola University Maryland prof who has been involved with LENR since 1989. A new name to me, but anyway, he did a FP's replication. Among other things, he had "two episodes of a run away".

• I have one point (also made by Ascoli) that establishing whether boil-off is wet or dry steam matters and cannot be assumed.

Wet steam definition:

"Wet steam is a mixture of steam and liquid water. It exists at a saturation temperature containing more than 5% water. It is said to be a two-phase mix: steam contains droplets of water that have not changed phase."

That is the entrained water hypothesis. Those droplets would include salts. Or, if they magically did not, they would produce false excess heat during calibrations. In short, if it had been wet steam, with entrained liquid water in it, we would know that for several reasons, the two most important:

1. The calibrations would show the same artifactual excess heat

2. Entrained water would be electrolyte. It would remove the salts from the cell. We know that did not happen because they carefully inventoried the salt and found it was all there. Only pure water left the cell. For an artifact so large that 35 W looks like 150 W, a great deal of entrained electrolyte would have to leave the cell, and the reduction in salt would be readily observable.

The other reasons I listed previously. For example, the video shows that the cell does not boil with this much input power. There are only electrolysis bubbles at 35 W, and the power falls after boiling begins. Obviously it never boils once the power is cut. That's impossible. Electrolysis never causes one electrode to get hot while the other does not.

So, even if there was entrained water (which there wasn't!), it cannot explain all of the boiling. In other words, any boiling at all is proof of a large amount of anomalous heat. Wet steam would only reduce the amount of anomalous heat; it cannot eliminate it.

Along the same lines, wet steam cannot explain the heat before the boil off, and the heat after it, which are both anomalous and many orders of magnitude beyond the limits of chemistry. It makes no sense to hypothesize that the heat during the boil off was actually wet steam, but before and after it was real. Why would it stop for 10 minutes? In point of fact, it would never start, as you see in the video.

The error mechanism here is clear and can be checked, but was not checked.

Yes, it was checked, by every method known to chemistry. You ignore that fact, but you cannot suggest any other methods, except testing the effluent gas, which I believe they also did, but I cannot find a reference to that.

Your repeating "they didn't check" does not make it true.

PS - as for only the cathode being hot ATER would explain that, would it not?

The only outside source of power in this cell was electrolysis. Explain how ATER can magically make one electrode hot while leaving the other one cold, when they are the same size, while it produces no electrolysis bubbles from either electrode. You doubt that was the case? LOOK AT THE VIDEO.

You ascribe magical powers to ATER.

In any case I don't know how you can establish such a fact from a video. Visible boiling preferentially at the electrode would be expected for reasons other than temperature.

Fascinating! Tell us please, what can cause boiling other than temperature? What "reasons" do you know? List one. You will win the Nobel for this, so don't hide your light under a bushel. And don't say it looked like boiling but it wasn't. That would not distill the water and leave the salts.

or 30W of electrolysis boiling water, that must surely depend on the temperature, and also on the transient chemical conditions: since significant energy can be stored in electrolysed D and O,

No, it is a trivial amount of energy compared to the excess heat during boil off. Furthermore the cell already produced megajoules of anomalous heat, far more than could have been stored by any chemical mechanism. So, the same stored heat would have to come out a few hundred times, and then a few dozen times more during boiling. Furthermore, the maximum speed at which it could be released in these conditions mean it would be less than 10 mW. Again, your explanation fails by orders of magnitude.

Let me add that everything I just wrote was described by Fleischmann and Pons in their papers. You don't need me telling you these things. For the most part, you don't need anyone telling you this. You can see for yourself in the video. Fleischmann liked experiments that told their own story, visually, and irrefutably. You are trying to refute this one by making up impossible stories about electrolysis that heats only one electrode and produces no bubbles, and the same chemical heat being released ~10,000 times (in some cases).

• Why isn't the control not boiling off ????

Because it really isn't a 'control'. It's a separate experiment with different uncontrolled conditions. They're uncontrolled because the experimentalists don't control the right things because they all think it's 'nuclear' when it's really chemical.

Saying you've set up a 'control' is not the same as doing it. It requires knowledge of the actual control variables, not the desired or imagined ones. Reproducibility to the level of full replication on demand is required to know how to set up a true control. CF (aka LENR) has never advanced beyond the 'we get it sometimes but the level is always different' stage. That's not reproducibility.

• In Nagel's ICCF21 summary he talks about Staker's contribution. He (Staker) is a Loyola University Maryland prof who has been involved with LENR since 1989.

Mike Staker used to work at the Army Research Lab. He and I had a few go-rounds on sci.physics.fusion. He didn't like my propositions but never would supply any data to back up his claims. The story I got is that he was working 'under the radar' and didn't tell his management about it until he retired. I suppose he ended up at Loyola after that.

" post by Mike Staker who claims to have achieved a sustained fusion reaction in Pd in his lab At Army Research Lab? " - from post to spf by Tom Clarke on 1/10/2003

• [written to THH] Your repeating "they didn't check" does not make it true.

ROFL

And your repeating over and over that I claimed such and such when I didn't doesn't make it true either!

• Official Post

He and I had a few go-rounds on sci.physics.fusion. He didn't like my propositions but never would supply any data to back up his claims

Well, if they won't supply the data, you have no choice but to beat on them until they do.